Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1036/2010
SUNITA DEVI Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans and jvir. Vishal
Soni, Advs.
Through : Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exception.
2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1036/2010
3. By the present petition, petitioner seel<s a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.l to mutate and convert her property bearing House No.108, Blocl<-G, measuring 48 sq. mts., Pocl<et •J' ^ No.2, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, in her name.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid house on 07.04.2008 by means of a registered Agreement to Sell. On 19.08.2009, petitioner had made an application to the DDA for mutation as well as conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold. 2010:DHC:12816 As no response was received petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act and in response thereto the following reply was received: SPEED POST R.T.I. CASE DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF DY.
DIRECTIOR LAB (ROHINI) No.F.19(368)/84/LAB/(RO)/119-RTI, dated 22.12.2009. To Smt. Sunita, R/o G-2/108, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi- 110085. Sub: Information required under R.T.I. Act 2005 Ref: RTI Application No.5593 dated 27.11.09 Sir, This has reference to your application under RTI dated 27.11.09 regarding present status of property bearing No.G-2/108, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, 85. In this connection, it is intimated that conversion case has been kept pending in view of the matter under sub-judice and the same will be processed further after the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Court. Yours faithfully, Dy. Director LAB (Rohini) Copy to:. ^ 1. P.5. to Director(RL) for information of latter.
2. Guard file Dy. Director LAB (Rohini) W.P.(C) 1036/2010 2/3
5. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court seeking the aforesaid directions.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance on an advance copy and submits that in view of the litigation pending (Detween the predecessor from whom the petitioner has purchased the property and as per the conversion policy of the DDA, the property cannot be converted from lease hold to free hold in the cases where the subject matter is under litigation.
7. Pendency of the litigation has not been disputed. In fact a certified copy of the plaint for recovery of possession as also to nullify and declare void the sale deed property has been placed on record. The conversion of the policy has not been challenged. No fault can be found in the action of the DDA in not converting the property, in question, from lease hold to free hold. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to interfere. Dismissed. SISTANI, J. February 19, 2010 'msr'